Don't make this personal. I'm glad you like your D100 and are getting acceptable images from it UW. Congrats!

I was comparing current 6mp $2000 DSLRs, not $25k digital medium format camera backs or the 1Ds. The D1x is OLD technology as digital goes and it's 4+mp image not up to current standards. I don't care if Nikon still charges $3500 for it, it's past tense. Same could be said for the failed Kodak 14N, failed Contax, lackluster Sigma Foveon and lackluster Canon 10D. In my original post I mentioned, "almost" every other DSLR in existence, not all; but I'd challenge you or anyone to prove me wrong with any image from any 35mm DSLR. Show me your best image and I'll show you mine. We'll let the readership here decide.

I am not a Fuji worshiper. I am a fan of image quality however. The fact that I've spent 30 years with Nikon systems means only that I'm reluctant to jump ship for Canon, Sigma or Pentax; I have too much invested in Nikkor glass. Right now I honestly believe that the S2 offers a superior image in the digital 35mm realm. Its a subjective opinion (wasn't that the impetus of this thread?) based on professional analysis of many thousands of images. Tomorrow, maybe the D2h will smoke the S2, next year the D2x. After that the Canon 2Ds. Who knows? Right now I think the S2 is at the top of the heap. Just a personal observation. Your mileage may vary.

The D1x is a current camera model that still sells to a certain type of customer. It's imager is 5.4 MP and is certainly up to current standards. The Kodak 14n is not a failure, either (at least not technically). You need read the reviews more carefully. If you meant to say $2000 dSLR's you should have. You said essentially all dSLR's "in existence" and you got called on it. You may feel the S2 that is at the top of the heap, but for resolving power the 14n and 1Ds clearly beat it. I suspect the SD9 can produce superior images as well at half the street price of the S2. It's a shame the SD9 is such an undesirable camera otherwise.

As for your challenge, it's irrelevent. We're talking about cameras here, not photographers. I imagine Bob could match anything you produce with your S2 out of his existing inventory, but that wouldn't make the Nikonos V a superior digital camera, would it?

I'm surprised you called the 10D lackluster. I don't think you'll get much agreement on that from anyone familiar with the camera.

As for the other thread:

The simple answer is color luminescence (monitor) versus color reflectivity (print) are not the same.

You're right, prints are much worse. The only reason that a low-end camera is suitable for web work is that high resolution is not required. Otherwise, a well calibrated CRT monitor is far better for judging images than paper. Apparently you and your nine friends don't know how to calibrate a monitor. Since you don't calibrate, the ten printers you have will produce 8-10 different prints as well.

You might find this interesting. Phil Askey's technical comparison of several DSLR's with respect to noise and a few other issues dealing with image purity. Then again, you can lead a horse to water.....

Since this subject has not been discussed here to my knowledge and it may be of interest, I thought I'd provide a link to a discussion of various types of output devices as they pertain to evaluation of images. Here it is: http://www.cg.tuwien...vic/node22.html

For an executive summary, CRT monitors are capable of significantly greater contrast, greater saturation, and wide color gamut as compared to print. Here's a quote:

There are two kinds of display media, light-emitting like CRT or, in a way, projected slides, and light-propagating, like photos or prints, which do not emit light themselves. Light propagating media is suitable for displaying solid colors by means of an external light source, while the other group has gamuts exceeding the solid colors and has the capability to display more saturated colors. E.g. the saturation of CRT blue can never be achieved with photo paper.

There is another section discussing dynamic range but you can read the article for that. More detailed discussions of print and CRT are also available.

Of course, prints made in Hawaii may perform better. This water's for you, Mike, drink up.

I may have overlooked it - but has anyone mention sync speed in this comparison? The S2's marginally better resolution won't help when you are shooting blennys darting out of their holes - at 1/125 of a second; or struggling to freeze sunrays - which is difficult enough with any dSLR. The slow sync speed of the Fuji is a major handicap underwater.

On land this may not be as much of an issue except for sports photography. I long for even more speed than the 1/180 of the D100 - the S2 would frustrate me!

I would've bought the S2 if it weren't for the slow speed - and the fact that only the Ike housing was available at the time.

I anxiously await the arrival of the next Fuji dSLR - especially with talk about superior highlight detail. The problem with the Fuji, Kodak, etc, is that they can do great things with image quality, but they are consistently stuck with Nikon's last generation body/metering/AF. And with Fuji being reluctant to bring their prices down alongside Nikon and Canon - they are encroaching on the professional $ range in which a tougher body and state of the art AF are expected.

An amazing sensor on an N80 chasis with average AF and metering is not an easy sell.

Both cameras are as good as each other, it just depends on which designer logo you want to advertise.
Nikon always sounds better, but that's where it ends!
At the end of the day picture quality is dictated by the users ability to interpret and capitalise on a certain situation confronting him or her.

I use the D100 in the Light and motion Titan housing which gives me 7 settings for strobe control through the camera,you can use any manufactures port with this housing ,so although you do not have TTL,it gives you a great lighting range.Give up TTL you will get so much more control.

Several months ago I bought an Ikelite housing for the Fuji S2 and after spending a few weeks with machine shop guys modifying the controls I finally feel I have a reasonable working system. My reason for selecting the Fuji S2 over the Nikon D100 was that although the cameras are quite similar, both based on the Nikon F-80 film body, the Fuji S2 offered one very significant advantage for the underwater shooter - compatibility with virtually all of the current underwater strobes. My reason for choosing Ikelite was its availabliity at a reasonable price, and that I could "see" how I'd be able to modify the controls I felt really needed improvement. I also wasn't quite ready to pay for one of the premium housings when I view the S2 as a short term camera because the improvements in the digital arena are coming month-by-month and an S3 can't be too far away.

So far I have done only limited testing of the camera underwater and my experience suggests that the TTL system works extremely well in situations where the total lighting is provided by strobes. And fairly well in situations where the portion of the picture being "flashed" has an ambient light level at least several f-stops lower than the ambient light setting for the water color. The one place I have had problems is when I want to "kiss" in only a very small amount of light on a subject whose ambient light metered value is only 1/2 to 1 f-stop less than the ambient light setting based on water color rendition. I have not been able to reduce the TTL as effectively as I am able to do with my housed F5 and film. And this despite turning the flash compensation all the way down to -3.0 and then trying to reduce the flash even more by adding more minus compensation with the "global" compensation. When shooting I usually have the camera in the M exposure mode and determine the water color rendition I want with the spot meter. Once I've set the exposure for ambient light, I bracket the flash exposure using the compensation controls.

I have been using both the 12-24 and the 24-85 f2.8~4. The latter lens has become one of my real favorites on the F5. Use in its macro mode limits the focal length range to 35-85mm, but allows focusing right down to the front of the dome port. On the F5 I use it in a 6" dome with either a 55mm or 60mm extension ring between the housing body and the dome. Like the 70-180mm micro-nikkor, this lens "gets wider" as you focus very close and using it in the 6" dome keeps the focus close. As a result it acts more like a 24mm~70mm. I used the lens on the F5 in the Galapagos a year and a half ago and was able to shoot everything from sea star size to sea lions and sharks. On the S2, with its 1.5x tele effect, the lens is a bit more "macroish" and not quite so universal.

People with the S2 (and almost any other Nikon body since F90X/N90S) should be aware that these cameras can be triggered when the compensation button is depressed. This has the advantage of showing you the compensation you are using for the TTL flash, and if your housing allows you to "lock" the compensation button down, you can change from one compensation to another with the camera at your eye simply by turning the main (rear) control dial control. I consider this such a significant advantage that it was the first modification I've made on all of my housings since a Nexus for the F-90x that I owned briefly before moving on to the F5, which is far-and-away the best underwater camera I have ever used.

My real digital dream would simply be a "full frame" TTL compatible back for the F5. Leica has announced they're going to be building such a back for their R8 & R9 cameras. And I'd love to have Fuji make one for the F5. In another six weeks I'll be going to Indonesia for a couple month and will have the time and opportunity to give the S2 its first real workout. If there's any real interest, I'd be glad to share what I learn from that trip with everyone.

I have been using both the 12-24 and the 24-85 f2.8~4. The latter lens has become one of my real favorites on the F5. Use in its macro mode limits the focal length range to 35-85mm, but allows focusing right down to the front of the dome port. On the F5 I use it in a 6" dome with either a 55mm or 60mm extension ring between the housing body and the dome. Like the 70-180mm micro-nikkor, this lens "gets wider" as you focus very close and using it in the 6" dome keeps the focus close. As a result it acts more like a 24mm~70mm. I used the lens on the F5 in the Galapagos a year and a half ago and was able to shoot everything from sea star size to sea lions and sharks. On the S2, with its 1.5x tele effect, the lens is a bit more "macroish" and not quite so universal.

I'm very interested in your experiences with the 24-85. Lee Peterson worked with this lens in a Subal D100 setup and was dissappointed with its performance behind a dome. I had him set up a zoom ring for one and have used it behind a flat port only.

I also have the cheaper 24-85 f/3.4 G lens. It does not provide the macro capability but it is much smaller, cheaper and takes a Nexus 60mm focus ring as a zoom ring perfectly. Without a diopter it focuses to about 15". With the Nexus wet diopter it focuses to 9" and provides an apparent magnification of about 1:1.5.

Tamron has a 28-75 f/2.8 that's inexpensive and provides pretty good close focus. It's quite a bit longer than the G lens but the same diameter.

I'm very surprised to hear that your are using this lens successfully behind a dome. I guess I'll have to try the D lens with a dome but will need 67mm diopters.

On that issue I have once used my Sigma 28-70mm f2.8-f2.8 behind a dome. I usually use it behind a flatport with my D100 and F100 - and it is fine, although possibly beginning to get a bit naughty at 28mm on the F100 (fine on the cropped sensor D100). Great on the D100 - probably my favourite lens (until I get a 10.5mm!).

Anyway when my housings were England and I was in the Red Sea in July, I was stuck using begged and borrowed kit from the rest of our group. And I found the 28-70mm with a +3 diopter (from my Nikkor 17-35mm) was rather nice behind a dome (Subal FE dome and 60mm port ext ring) with the F100 (no spare D100 housing). View was wider (dome versus flat port). But that said, and although I didn't shoot test shots for evaluation, I would probably struggle to pick dome ports shots from flat port shots!

So in conclusion (and without much data to back me up) I guess I found that a dome wasn't worth the hassle, particularly for the D100 (or other cropped sensors digis: D30, D60, 10D, S2 etc). But it did work. I agree with Craig that flat port will probably have it covered.